The “Kerry Must Be Lying, Because Everyone Loves George” Bushwah
From the LA Times:
WASHINGTON ? The Bush administration and its supporters Monday continued to pressure Sen. John F. Kerry to identify the foreign leaders he claims want him to defeat President Bush this November, adding that if he doesn’t name names, his claim must be untrue.
I think we can see what is happening here if we recall the well-known psychological principal of “Liars believe that everyone else is lying, because that is what they would do in similar circumstances.” But I imagine that BushCo does suspect that there may be foreign leaders who want Kerry to win, and if they can get Kerry to name them, the White House will make sure that the preznit no give turkey to Canada, Germany, Japan, and whatever other traitorous countries said that they liked Kerry More than Georgie.
And from the Washington Post:
But it was the continuing flap over what Kerry said at a Florida fundraiser last week regarding the desire of some foreign leaders to see Bush replaced that continued to reverberate yesterday. White House press secretary Scott McClellan called on Kerry to explain his remarks. “If he’s going to make those comments, he ought to back them up,” McClellan said. “If he refuses to, one can only come to the conclusion that he’s simply making up these assertions to attack the president.”
Um, isn’t this guy paid by the taxpayers to work as a White House spokesman, not a Bush-Cheney 2004 spokesman? And so wouldn’t this kind of thing fall outside his official duties?
Vice President Cheney, at a fundraiser in Phoenix, noted that Kerry had told a questioner on Sunday that it was “none of your business” when asked to name foreign leaders supporting his candidacy. “At the very least,” Cheney said, “we have a right to know what he is saying to foreign leaders that makes them so supportive of his candidacy.”
Has Kerry been acting all sane and reasonable with them? If so, it’s not fair, because it makes Kerry look better to them than Bush!
Or is Cheney worried that Kerry is going around promising foreign leaders that they can have their choice of Guam, American Samoa, Puero Rico, or Alabama, AND a Tivo machine, if they will support him?
Richard C. Holbrooke, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in the Clinton administration, came to Kerry’s defense last night. “The Republicans are just having fun with this,” he said. “They know it’s correct. . . . The overwhelming majority of foreign leaders and leadership want a change in American leadership.”
No duh! I mean, why should foreign leaders be any different than anybody else when it comes to wanting a change in American leadership? And Bush isn’t even promising them tax cuts, so why in heaven’s name would they want him to win in November?
So, I declare this whole “Kerry must tell us which countries said like him better than they like us, or it proves he’s lying” fluffernutter to be bogus, and demand that I never have to hear about it again.
UPDATE: One of those foreign leaders may be God. Per WorldNetDaily, God’s prophet, Mel Gibson, told Sean Hannity that “he has ‘doubts’ about President Bush and his re-election.” And you know that if Mel is saying it, then God is thinking it.
“I am having doubts, of late,” Gibson said, according to the report. “It mainly has to do with the weapons [of mass destruction] claims.”
The hour-long interview is scheduled to run today on Sean’s radio program. Expect Scott McClellan to say that unless Mel can prove that there are no WMDs, then Mel is lying about having doubts.
Let the Repugs pressure Kerry to come up with some proof… Hesiod’s already pointed out how Rodriguez Zapatero said earlier this week he hopes and believes Kerry will win the upcoming election, and how Putin believes the 2000 election was a sham (a bit ironic I admit).
When former Canadian PM Jean Chretien was asked, shortly after Bush’s inauguration, if he would have preferred Gore as President, he diplomatically stated that wasn’t necessarily true, though many of his staffers came out and said the Liberal cabinet decidedly prefers dealing with Democrats in the White House.
It might take some reading between the lines to come up with the evidence, but Kerry’s claim was indeed accurate. Now that it looks like John Howard and Tony Blair will soon be on their way out, it seems like Bush’s only friend will be the murdering despot Islam Karimov.
Ooo, can we give away Alabama, please? On the other hand who would really want it?
I’m completely in favor of giving away Alabama. Mainly because I have a really annoying ex-bf there. I realize I have very annoying ex-bfs in many states, but he’s _really_ annoying.
Bush is just jealous because he has to pay other countries to get them to say that Bush is neato keen.
LA Times has a story that needs to be read. Major points: Reporter who filed the pool story reporting the “foreign leaders” line now realizes he MISQUOTED KERRY from the start, and this graf:
“Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), in a conference call arranged by the Bush-Cheney campaign, said: “He clearly has an obligation to, you know ? you put up or you shut up. You don’t make up reckless charges and then say, ‘Well, it’s really secret, I can’t tell you.’ ”
I think this line needs to get into every Dem campaign package ASAP. 🙂
Let’s hope Kerry won’t name them – Bush will add them to his must bomb list.
Enough with the giving-away-Alabama idea, awright? Some of us happen to like it here. How about we just give away Crawford, Texas ? I ain’t never heard a nothin’ good comin’ outta there.
I’m amazed they make comments like this, saying that if you make statements without proof then they are lies.
What about WMD? What about W’s Guards service? Obviously I could type all day in this vein.
The arrogance is breathtaking.
As a Michigan native I would happily support giving Michigan to Canada for Kerry support (whatever that means). They have better music television, Vancouver (the most beautiful place I’ve ever been) and we already have most of the accent and use their coins as our own.
They have prettier currency too, IMO.
In exchange, we have fudge and a big bridge. It’s a horking big bridge.
In exchange, we have fudge and a big bridge. It’s a horking big bridge.
Canada doesn’t need your horking big bridge. They already have one that’s longer: Confederation Bridge, which connects Prince Edward Island to the mainland, is three miles longer than the Mackinac Bridge and it actually goes over the ocean instead of a piddly little lake.
Ok, ok. but we’ve still got the fudge, and can you really say no to a spare bridge? ^^
What if we just send fudge in general to Canada? I make a really great pan of fudge.
(I also have an ex-bf from Michigan. He isn’t all that annoying.)
Quote from a senator about Kerry’s refusal to name names of the foreign leaders:
“Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), in a conference call arranged by the Bush-Cheney campaign, said: “He clearly has an obligation to, you know ? you put up or you shut up. You don’t make up reckless charges and then say, ‘Well, it’s really secret, I can’t tell you.’ ”
OOOOoo! Can we use this quote against the reasons Saddam was so dangerous and Osama was not? the secret files on the WMDs? the Energy-Cheney meetings? the Ashcroft witch hunts? the secure secret location? the house of Bush/Saud connection? I am getting breathless, and no where near finished!
To look for foreign leaders who might prefer Kerry, one might start with the list of countries that have aid cut off for refusing to enter into a bilateral agreement with the US to exempt the US from prosecution by the International Criminal Court. One might even consider those countries that have been blackmailed into signing such an agreement.
Then one might consider Schroeder who won reelection (narrowly) by opposing the invasion of Iraq and Putin who called the invasion “a huge political mistake” and then won reelection by a close to 70% majority on the same day that the party of Aznar who supported Bush’s illegal invasion was turned out of power.
These are just the ones that the facts indicate, leaving aside others that have been less directly threatened or humiliated by the Bush administration.
And if anyone doubts the wisdom of withholding this information from BushCo, they should revisit Colin Powell’s “There will be consequences” interview about those who opposed this administration’s will.